Mr.
Branson commended the Planning Commission regarding the fact that they handle
themselves well and he, as the City Attorney, does not have the problems that
some other communities have, that he reads about in his professional
journals.He explained the criteria and
the frequency of FOIA requests.He also
discussed the conflict of interest regulations.If there is a fiduciary interest in the topic being discussed, there is
the possibility of a conflict of interest.The petitioner should have a legal interest in the property coming
before the Commission.If there is no
legal interest in the property, an individual should not have the right to
change the use of that property.

Security
is an important concern in these times.We have security in the area when Boards and Commissions are
meeting.It is not something staff takes
lightly.Our community is very safe
compared to many others.However, it is
not something staff takes lightly and precautions have been taken behind the
scenes.

Chickens –
What comes first, the chicken or the r-egg-ulation?

There
is a continuing inquiry for the keeping of chickens in residential areas.City staff has had more interest expressed in
the keeping of chickens than there has been in the keeping of any other
animal.There have been at least six
inquiries about the keeping of chickens.Ms. Winland stated that chickens are very common.Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Lansing, East Grand
Rapids, Traverse City and Grand Haven Township all allow chickens in their
communities.Most of the communities
have followed the Ann Arbor model.Most
of them must be in the back yard, 10’ from property lines and 40’ from
residential structures.Most of them
also require approval by the neighbors.

The
most common complaint from people who want to have chickens is the “Right to
Farm Act and Raising Poultry”.“In areas
zoned agriculture or where agriculture is allowed, the Right to Farm Act (RTF) may
supersede certain local ordinances.If
the area is zoned residential, then local zoning requirements may apply.The RTF Act is subject to final
interpretation by a judge.”

Ms.
Winland stated that most municipalities expressly prohibit fowl, unless it is a
domestic bird that is kept inside all the time.Staff is not promoting this, but the subject has come up.Ms. Winland spoke with several Planning
Directors in communities that allow chickens.The numbers of chickens are usually limited and where chicken coops can
be located on property.

Thus
far, Mr. Baker stated he has been telling people that chickens are not
permitted in the City of Midland.The
ordinance text that has been revised is explicit that fowl are not allowed in
the city.

Mr.
Senesac asked if people had inquired about ducks, turkeys, and other fowl.Mr. Baker stated there had been no inquires
about these types of fowl.Mr. Senesac
stated that, if this issue is brought before the Planning Commission again, we
should include other types of fowl so we don’t have to go through this entire
process with each individual species.

Having
reviewed the samples of ordinances from other communities, the Planning
Commission desires to leave the current ordinance as it is.

Temporary
structures – How do you regulate a tent?

Mr.
Baker opened the discussion of how “tent structures” eventually become
permanent or storage buildings.Should
those now be regulated like accessory buildings?They have not been regulated, they have not
been permitted, and we do not regulate their location on the property.The ordinance is silent about the existence
of these structures.When they are
utilized for bulk storage or when they start to tatter, sometimes the city receives
complaints about these structures.They
tend to deteriorate more quickly than a permanent structure.

Code
enforcement staff feels these “tent” structures are intended to be permanent
and that they should be made to meet the same regulations as accessory
structures or other buildings.

Mr.
Mead stated he thinks they are an eye sore and they need to be removed.Ms. Brown agreed.

These
structures are all minimally constructed fixtures.They can be blown down in a storm, they can
become tattered, and they can become rodent infested.

Mr.
Pnacek asked Mr. Baker to take a look at what the Building Code says about
accessory structures and how the Building Code defines those structures.

The
Planning Commission is in general agreement for staff to move forward to
regulate these types of structures.Ms.
Brown asked staff to compare what they are doing in Ann Arbor, Lansing, and
other communities similar to ours.

Other topics

Ms.
Winland presented a draft of the proposed homeless shelter zoning
language.She reviewed it with Shelterhouse,
TenSixteen Treatment Center, Safe Haven Outreach Center and the Open Door.TenSixteen did have some concerns with the
definitions.They are authorized under
state law by certain statutes.That is
why Transitional Housing and Residential Treatment Centers contain different
language than previously proposed.Under
Residential Treatment Centers, staff has removed statements that tend to
classify people into particular groups.

Ms.
Winland has also communicated with clubs and organizations in the community
regarding the proposed ordinance language.No changes have been recommended in this category.

Mr.
Mead brought up the subject of walkways to city parks.Mr. Baker stated that this subject is still
on his radar.The Planning Co-op has
just had limited time to work on this issue.